“Apostates,” “Anti- Mormons,”

18 Pages·2014·0.19 MB·English

L
etters
“Apostates,” “Anti- retical approaches in the social
sciences that suggest it is impor-
Mormons,” and Other
tant for readers to understand
Problems in Seth Payne’s
the perspective of the author.
“Ex-Mormon Narratives
This view originated in feminist
and Pastoral Apologetics”
theory, but has since become
I am a former Mormon.1 I common in symbolic interac-
was raised in a very devout tionism, conflict and critical
LDS family in one of the most theory, postmodernism, post-
Mormon counties in all of Utah, structuralism, and many other
Morgan County. I was extremely fields.2 Knowing the perspective
devoted as a youth, missing of the author helps reveal the
church rarely. I served a mission biases in what the author has
in Costa Rica from 1996–1998. written. I included my back-
My mission convinced me of the ground so readers will know my
importance of religion. Before perspective, but also to illustrate
my mission, I planned on becom- one of the first shortcomings
ing a medical doctor. After my of an article recently pub-
mission, I decided I had to figure lished in Dialogue, Seth Payne’s
religion out. I completed my BA “Ex-Mormon Narratives and
in Psychology at the University Pastoral Apologetics.”3 While
of Utah in 2000 and started the author’s perspective was
graduate work in Sociology at ultimately implied at the end of
the University of Cincinnati in the article, had the article begun
2001. I left the LDS Church in with a similar delineation of the
the summer of 2002 (for reasons author’s personal background
I will detail below). Today, I am and perspective, it is likely I
not religious. I am an atheist and would have read the article quite
humanist. I am also, occasionally, differently. I would have known
a vocal critic of the LDS Church. ahead of time that the article
I am not, however, an “apostate” was written by a “pastoral apolo-
or an “anti-Mormon,” for rea- gist,” whose methodology and
sons I will detail below. interpretation were colored by
I provided this background his perspective. Because I do not
not because I am offering an want to be criticized for critiqu-
“apostate” narrative but rather ing Seth Payne, whom I do not
because there are several theo- know and who, for all I know,
v
vi Dialogue: a Journal of MorMon ThoughT, 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014)
is a very nice, well-intentioned “apostate.” People who leave
individual, I will instead repeat- religions—I have argued else-
edly refer to his article, the title where that they should be
of which I have shortened to called “religious exiters”7—are
save space: “Pastoral Apolo- primarily called apostates by
getics.” The first topic I want those who remain in the reli-
to discuss is the importance of gion they left.8 This is, in fact,
language. Terminology matters. one of the important insights in
Language can be used as a tool Bromley’s edited volume, which
to further the aims of a domi- is not coincidentally called
nant, hegemonic group.4 While The Politics of Religious Apostasy.
I lean more toward quantitative Occasionally, those who leave
research and consider myself a religion may call themselves
an empiricist, I see the utility in “apostates,” often for lack of
perspectives like critical theory. a better or more well-known
I also see the importance of term, but rarely is “apostate”
understanding those ideas as their key identity marker.9
they relate to how biases can Instead, they typically develop a
enter into the work of schol- new identity.10 If their new iden-
ars. As a sociologist who has tity is secular, then they likely
published qualitative work will choose one of the many
before, I will also examine the labels available to nonreligious
methodology and interpreta- and nontheistic individuals, like
tions in “Pastoral Apologetics” atheist, agnostic, humanist, or
based on common standards freethinker. If the new identity
for qualitative work.5 I con- is religious, then they will likely
clude with some thoughts on adopt terminology that cor-
the broader implications of responds to that new religious
“Pastoral Apologetics.” identity (e.g., Evangelical Chris-
tian, Buddhist, etc.). Apostate is
Oppressive Discourse a pejorative term used by those
who feel betrayed by the person
“Apostates”
leaving the religion to denigrate
“Pastoral Apologetics” draws that individual.11 It is oppressive
heavily on David Bromley’s discourse.12
work,6 but misuses Brom- Bromley lays out three criteria
ley’s definition of the term for an individual to be labeled
Letters vii
an apostate. First, the person offers static criteria that can be
has to have been a member of used by social scientists to clas-
a “subversive” organization. sify an organization into one of
Second, the person has to join his three types. Nowhere in his
an oppositional group after chapter does he suggest that the
leaving. Third, the person has classification of an organization
to actively work to destroy the as allegiant, contestant, or sub-
subversive organization, which versive is based on the relative
he/she left. perspective of the individual
“Pastoral Apologetics” who left it.
describes the three types Without going into all the
of organizations Bromley characteristics of the different
discusses in his chapter— types of organizations, the most
allegiant, contestant, and obvious classification for the LDS
subversive—in a largely Church today is as a contestant
accurate way. Allegiant orga- organization, not a subversive
nizations align with prevailing organization. Given the first
cultural norms and values; criteria for someone to be an
contestant organizations are apostate using Bromley’s three
moderately in tension with criteria above is that he/she has
prevailing cultural norms; to leave a subversive organiza-
subversive organizations are tion, it can be definitively said
in high tension with cultural that there are no Mormon apostates
norms and are considered today! In the early days of the
illegitimate.13 However, “Pas- LDS Church, perhaps even up
toral Apologetics” then twists until the end of polygamy in
Bromley’s definition, suggest- 1890 or shortly thereafter, the
ing that the classification of LDS Church would probably
an organization as subversive have qualified as a subversive reli-
is based on how those who gion.14 There could, then, have
leave the religion see it, “It been Mormon apostates prior to
is from these groups who, 1890 (and obviously were). But,
broadly speaking and to vary- if we use Bromley’s definitional
ing degrees, view the modern criteria, there are no Mormon
LDS Church as subversive that apostates today.
LDS sociological apostates Some readers may be wonder-
emerge” (97). But Bromley ing if there are apostates by other
viii Dialogue: a Journal of MorMon ThoughT, 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014)
definitions. Of course, though word “war,” the meaning is clear:
it depends on the definition. If someone who is anti-war does
an “apostate” is anyone who not want war to exist. Someone
leaves a religion, then there who is anti-gay does not want
are millions of Mormon apos- gays to exist. Someone who is
tates.15 However, that seems like anti-Semitic does not want Jews
a very weighty label to describe to exist. But what does “anti-
individuals like the roughly one Mormon” mean? If someone is
million Brazilians who were “anti-Mormon,” does that mean
baptized as members of the they do not want “Mormons”
LDS Church but no longer to exist?
consider themselves LDS. Yes.
Unless most such individuals I think it is fair to say that
become vocal critics when they there were anti-Mormons in
leave the LDS Church, labeling the nineteenth century. People
them “apostates” seems very like Lilburn Boggs wanted to
pejorative and biased. exterminate Mormons, and
Other definitions aside, anti-Mormons killed Joseph
“Pastoral Apologetics” specifi- Smith Jr.16 But are there any anti-
cally draws on Bromley’s work Mormons in existence today?
to define apostates and, as a Other than perhaps the most
result, sets itself up to be unable extreme factions of fundamen-
to analyze apostate narratives talist religious groups, who want
unless they are from individu- to exterminate everyone unlike
als who left the LDS Church in them, to my knowledge there
the nineteenth century. Why, are no organized, openly anti-
then, does “Pastoral Apologet- Mormon groups in existence.
ics” argue that it is analyzing There are, however, critics
“apostate” narratives when it of Mormonism. But criticizing
cannot be doing anything of the LDS Church or other vari-
the sort? I will return to this ants of Mormonism does not
question below. make someone anti-Mormon.
If that were the case, then any
“Anti-Mormons”
Mormons who are not also Jews
“Anti” is a prefix meaning because they disagree (which is
“opposition to” something. a form of critique) with some
When “anti-” is added to the aspect of Judaism are also anti-
Letters ix
Semitic. Disagreeing with theologically conservative
Jewish doctrine does not make anti-Mormons, radical
someone anti-Semitic; wanting theological conservatives,
to exterminate Jews does. Being and secular anti-Mormons
a critic of Mormonism does not (who may take an antago-
make someone anti-Mormon nistic stand against the
any more than being a critic of LDS Church similar to the
the federal government makes antagonism seen in certain
someone anti-American. Criti- “New Atheist” circles). Con-
cizing the excesses of Wall servative anti-Mormons find
Street does not make someone the modern LDS Church
anti-capitalism. Criticizing subversive on mostly theo-
the education system does not logical grounds.17
make someone anti-education.
By calling these groups “anti-
Criticizing your meal at a
Mormons,” what does “Pastoral
restaurant does not make you
Apologetics” accomplish?
anti-food. Criticizing a scien-
tific study does not make you
Oppressive Othering
anti-science. Criticizing the
I do not know Seth Payne’s
LDS Church does not make
motivations for writing “Pastoral
you anti-Mormon. It makes
Apologetics,” nor in calling some
you a critic.
former Mormons “apostates”
“Pastoral Apologetics” uses
and/or “anti-Mormons.” I also
the label “anti-Mormon” nine
do not care to speculate as to
times in reference to a variety
what his motivations are. But
of groups, as in this passage:
I think it is quite clear what is
These groups are diverse accomplished when such terms
with conservative Evan- are used, regardless of who uses
gelical anti-Mormons at them. Both terms are rhetorical
one end of the spectrum devices used to “poison the well,”
and radical “New Atheist” which is a form of logical fal-
secular critics at the other. lacy in the family of argumentum
Even amongst these vari- ad hominem. Poisoning the well
ous anti-Mormon groups is used to introduce negative
it is important to make information about someone
a distinction between with the aim of discrediting that
x Dialogue: a Journal of MorMon ThoughT, 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014)
individual and anything he/she oppresses the targeted groups.
says.18 By labeling someone an This is a form of oppressive
“apostate” or “anti-Mormon” othering. Once their deviant and
before considering what the marginal status has been con-
individual has to say, one structed,21 anything “apostates”
makes whatever they then say and “anti-Mormons” say can be
suspect. It is an indirect form dismissed on the grounds that
of attacking the person rather they are “apostates” and “anti-
than critiquing their argument. Mormons.” This reinforces the
Language matters.19 There power differential between the
are clear power differentials two groups and allows one group
between the LDS Church and to control the cultural milieu.
its former members. Given In addition to poisoning the
the resources the LDS Church well with terminology, “Pasto-
has to influence public opin- ral Apologetics” also explicitly
ion versus those of former discredits everything these
members, who have, at best, former Mormons said: “Sev-
a handful of semi-organized eral researchers have pointed
institutions with meager out the inherent unreliability of
resources, the LDS Church is apostate narratives in establish-
in a much stronger position to ing fact. Daniel Johnson goes
dictate public discourse (which so far as to say, ‘Substantial
is another reason why it does portions of apostate accounts—
not qualify as a subversive indeed, perhaps even entire
organization). Just as religious accounts—have nothing to do
scholars in the social sciences with real-world happenings
have largely controlled the or experiences’” (98). In other
discourse and terminology words, not only are the accounts
used to describe individuals analyzed in “Pastoral Apologet-
who leave religions (e.g., defec- ics” the accounts of “apostates”
tor, apostate, dropout, etc.),20 and “anti-Mormons,” but they
when members of the LDS cannot be trusted at all. If this
Church use derogatory and is the case, then the only utility
inflammatory terminology to in analyzing such narratives is
describe those who leave or in trying to understand what lies
critique the religion, the effect dissenters make up to justify their
is similar: it marginalizes and disillusions. This is oppressive
Letters xi
othering based on the dismissal an “apostate” website. That is
of decades of scholarship con- the source for 111 of the 137
cerning narratives.22 exit narratives. The remaining
There are other exam- exit narratives come from two
ples in “Pastoral Apologetics” explicitly evangelical Christian
that illustrate the importance websites.
of language. For instance, While there are some char-
“Pastoral Apologetics” char- acteristics of these narratives
acterizes former Mormons presented in “Pastoral Apologet-
as “radical,” “vitriolic,” and ics,” two important details are
“irrational.” Using these terms omitted. The first is that these
to describe the narratives of narratives are by no means a
former Mormons does not representative sample of such
suggest reasonable analyses.23 narratives. I have long been
It is judgmental, controlling, involved with the many and
manipulative, and oppressive. varied blogs and forums that
cater to former Mormons. There
Methodological Problems
are literally hundreds of websites
“Pastoral Apologetics” draws (if not thousands) produced by
on a sample of 137 exit narra- former Mormons, many of them
tives found on three websites. containing exit narratives. One
The first forum is erroneously website, www.outerblogness.
labeled—perhaps due to an org, serves as an aggregator for
issue with typesetting—as former Mormon websites and it
coming from www.postmor- lists hundreds of them. Many of
mon.org, which is a website run those websites include exit nar-
by Jeff Ricks, who is character- ratives. Even www.exmormon.
ized in “Pastoral Apologetics” org now reports having close
as not being an “apostate,” as to 700 exit narratives, but it
he and his organization are not appears that “Pastoral Apolo-
explicitly antagonistic toward getics” examined those listed on
the LDS Church. But it is then this specific page: http://www.
stated that the narratives come exmormon.org/stories.htm,
from www.exmormon.org, which lists just 105 of the close to
which “Pastoral Apologetics” 700 exit narratives available on
labels Recovery from Mormon- the website. Why were the nar-
ism or RFM and considers ratives that were used chosen?
xii Dialogue: a Journal of MorMon ThoughT, 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014)
There was no discussion of the with the sampling frame used to
sampling frame for the study. find exit narratives, I am reticent
Another serious concern to consider the conclusions in
I have with the sample, par- “Pastoral Apologetics” to be
ticularly the sample from www. generalizable beyond a specific
exmormon.org, is that no dates subset of former Mormons who
were provided. At one point, frequented one or two online
“Pastoral Apologetics” noted forums in the mid 1990s.
that some of the narratives The lack of generalizability
were from the 1990s (100). But is particularly noteworthy, since
what is not explicitly mentioned “Pastoral Apologetics” levels
in “Pastoral Apologetics” is similar criticism at a survey
that almost all of the narra- John Dehlin and colleagues con-
tives listed on that first page are ducted in 2012: “Understanding
from the mid 1990s. In other Mormon Disbelief.”24 Here is
words, over 80 percent of the what “Pastoral Apologetics” says
narratives analyzed in “Pasto- of the study:
ral Apologetics” are close to
While Dehlin’s study is
twenty years old. While there
incredibly valuable in many
is nothing inherently wrong
ways, it has methodological
with analyzing data from a
constraints that prevent
specific time period, the time
me from drawing sweeping
period should be noted, par-
conclusions about ex-Mor-
ticularly since narratives from
mons generally. The biggest
the mid 1990s may not be like
methodological problem of
more recent narratives. There
the study is that survey par-
is reason to believe that is the
ticipants were self-selected
case. Even a cursory glance at
via the Internet. Without
some of the more recent nar-
question, such self-selection
ratives finds concerns that are
reinforces the most com-
not included in the tables in
monly discussed reasons
“Pastoral Apologetics,” issues
Mormons begin to doubt
like LDS Church finances and
the LDS Church’s positions on their faith. In order to for-
homosexuality, same-sex mar- mulate conclusions beyond
riage, and gender inequality. the limited population of
Given the serious problems those who participated in
Letters xiii
Dehlin’s survey, it would former Mormons. But con-
be necessary to conduct trasting the two studies calls
a decades-long study that into question the conclusions
tracks the beliefs, activities, from “Pastoral Apologetics,”
and attitudes of randomly especially given that most of
selected individual Mor- the narratives are from close to
mons over time. twenty years ago.
This also raises another
I have the same concerns
concern with the study’s gen-
with the study, but these con-
eralizability. Kirk Hadaway, a
cerns also apply to “Pastoral
well-known sociologist, gave a
Apologetics.” More impor-
presentation in 2006 in which he
tantly, the “Understanding
estimated that close to 250,000
Mormon Disbelief” study
people left the LDS Church
contradicts almost all of the
in the U.S. between 1999 and
findings of “Pastoral Apolo-
2004, which translates into about
getics.” On page 8 of the
50,000 people leaving the LDS
“Understanding Mormon
Church every year.25 Assuming
Disbelief” study, the factors
Hadaway’s estimate is accurate
that contribute to people no
and if we extend it from 1999 to
longer believing in Mormon-
2013, that would suggest about
ism are listed. Of the top ten
700,000 Americans left the LDS
reasons given for no longer
Church during that time. If we
believing, just one is similar to
total all of the participants in
those highlighted in “Pastoral
various former Mormon forums
Apologetics”: “not feeling spiri-
and all of those who run websites
tually edified at church.” The
or blogs, a reasonable estimate
remaining nine are doctrinal,
would be between 10,000 and
historical, or political reasons.
20,000 active to semi-active par-
I am not trying to suggest that
ticipants. These would be vocal
we actually know the primary
critics of Mormonism (not “apos-
reasons why people leave the
tates” or “anti-Mormons”). Vocal
LDS Church. Neither the “Pas-
critics of the LDS Church would
toral Apologetics” study nor
therefore make up between 1.4
the “Understanding Mormon
percent and 2.9 percent of former
Disbelief” study has random,
Mormons. What are the rest of
representative samples of
the former Mormons?
xiv Dialogue: a Journal of MorMon ThoughT, 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014)
I fully understand the prob- had summations of ideas from
lems with using anecdotes the narratives in the voice of
as evidence. But if there are the article’s author. That is not
not 700,000 vocal critics of common practice in qualitative
Mormonism, the evidence research.26
would suggest that there are What is also not common
far more former Mormons like practice in qualitative research
my wife than like me. My wife is to critique the narratives being
is completely disinterested in analyzed, at least not without
Mormonism. The only times beginning the article with a
she thinks about the LDS note about the author’s subjec-
Church are when it figures tive biases.27 Yet, throughout
very prominently in the news “Pastoral Apologetics,” the argu-
or when I raise issues related ments included in the narratives
to my research. Otherwise, are dismissed and critiqued,
it is a non-issue for her. Does often unfairly. For instance, on
my wife warrant the label page 105, “Pastoral Apologet-
“apostate” or “anti-Mormon” ics” says, “No author reports
because she is trying to live her being completely comfortable with
life outside the religion she was Mormonism and subsequently
raised in without criticizing or deciding to cut ties for purely doc-
even thinking about it? If the trinal reasons” (emphasis mine).
majority of former Mormons These two adjectives are intrigu-
are more like my wife than the ing. They set an impossibly high
vocal critics whose exit narratives bar. “Pastoral Apologetics”
were analyzed in “Pastoral seems to be suggesting that the
Apologetics,” then what does only way someone could claim
“Pastoral Apologetics” really to have left the LDS Church on
tell us about the reasons why doctrinal grounds is if they were
people leave the LDS Church? completely comfortable with every
I have three additional criti- aspect of Mormonism and then
cisms of the methodology in had purely doctrinal objections.
“Pastoral Apologetics.” First, If there was any other reason
for a qualitative study of nar- for leaving—moving, changing
ratives, I was surprised that it jobs, political disagreements,
did not include a single quote problems with patriarchy, prob-
from the narratives. At best we lems with sexual discrimination,